Midnight in Paris

TheMutt92

New member
This is only the second Woody Allen film I've seen (after Manhattan), but so far it's my favorite of his, as well as being my favorite film this year.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BYRWfS2s2v4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
I've seen most of Allen's work, and this film is, I think, his best in years, perhaps since Everybody Says I Love You, in the early 1990s. It's a minor work, probably - and feels like that's what it's aiming towards - but it's a lovely experience, and not as strained as some of his other later works. I recommend it.
 

Demitasse

Member
Anyone else see the new Woody Allen movie? It's chock full of 1920s personalities that Young Indy came across in Europe- Earnest Hemingway, Degas, Picasso (the actor bears a resemblance to Young Indy's Dan Webb), etc.
Anyway, there's some affinity with Young Indy and you may enjoy it! Rotten Tomatoes gave it a whopping 92%! Check it out!
 

Demitasse

Member
D'oH! I actually even thought about posting this in Off Topic, but thought there was enough Young Indy-tie in to put it here. Should have checked. Maybe Violet or someone wouldn't mind merging the threads?!
Thx.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Demitasse said:
Anyone else see the new Woody Allen movie? It's chock full of 1920s personalities that Young Indy came across in Europe- Earnest Hemingway, Degas, Picasso (the actor bears a resemblance to Young Indy's Dan Webb), etc.
Anyway, there's some affinity with Young Indy and you may enjoy it! Rotten Tomatoes gave it a whopping 92%! Check it out!

Threads merged. And, yeah, I gave at least a passing thought to Young Indy while viewing it. Same goes for the series <I>Boardwalk Empire</I>, featuring Capone, Torrio, and a bit part for Colosimo.
 

Demitasse

Member
Definitely Allen's best in years. It's up there with Purple Rose of Cairo (for obvious similarities) and Annie Hall.

I've been wanting to see Boardwalk Empire! Will check it out.
 

Gustav

New member
Spoilers

It was very entertaining but I actually thought You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger was better.

I thought the main character's choice to leave his wife was made too conveniently easy because she was such a magnificent *****. Also I didn't really like the scene at the end when they went back to the 1890's and Marion Cotillard decided to stay there almost on a whim. That scene was just too obviously being used to drive the moral home.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Gustav said:
It was very entertaining but I actually thought You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger was better.

That's one of the only ones I haven't seen yet. Still need to.

Gustav said:
I thought the main character's choice to leave his wife was made too conveniently easy because she was such a magnificent *****.

Yeah, you're not wrong there.

Gustav said:
Also I didn't really like the scene at the end when they went back to the 1890's and Marion Cotillard decided to stay there almost on a whim. That scene was just too obviously being used to drive the moral home.

I see where you're coming from, but the charming elements of the film as a whole and that segment in particular managed to overcome that. Besides, it's not a <I>huge</I> moral - as he says, it's a "minor epiphany" or some such. I think it was a film that never really felt strained, even with the unfortunate portrayal of McAdams and her parents. Breezy profundity isn't something you see very often.
 

Gustav

New member
I was so concerned with explaining what I thought was wrong with the movie that I forgot to say that I actually loved it. On some level I even enjoyed hating McAdams and her parents and particularly Micheal Sheen's character, which I was probably meant to anyway. And it was fun seeing all those icons from the 20's, especially Hemingway and Dali.

Attila the Professor said:
I see where you're coming from, but the charming elements of the film as a whole and that segment in particular managed to overcome that. Besides, it's not a huge moral - as he says, it's a "minor epiphany" or some such. I think it was a film that never really felt strained, even with the unfortunate portrayal of McAdams and her parents. Breezy profundity isn't something you see very often.

No it isn't a huge moral. Maybe that was just something Woody Allen felt couldn't be ignored.
Personally I think he felt obligated to tell us to "embrace the present" because it sounds bad to say "yes, you would have been happier some time in a past era", and you can't have a time travel movie without addressing the idea, but what I came away with was "just be glad you weren't born even farther in the future."
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Gustav said:
Personally I think he felt obligated to tell us to "embrace the present" because it sounds bad to say "yes, you would have been happier some time in a past era", and you can't have a time travel movie without addressing the idea, but what I came away with was "just be glad you weren't born even farther in the future."

Ha! That's quite funny; I hadn't thought to read it that way.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Way late in seeing this one. Say 'Hi' to Trotsky for me. Ha!

Gustav said:
Personally I think he felt obligated to tell us to "embrace the present" because it sounds bad to say "yes, you would have been happier some time in a past era", and you can't have a time travel movie without addressing the idea, but what I came away with was "just be glad you weren't born even farther in the future."

I agree this is an interesting take -- but the film has such an optimistic ending with Wilson's character ending up with a young (hot) Parisian soulmate. The present doesn't look too bad after all -- so I can't agree with you Gustav (note, Wilson's character ends up with the young one and not the older Mrs. Sarkozy).

I also agree that Allen was a little in-the-face with the "embrace the present" moral. Initially I thought he was onto making the nicer point that all artists are linked together not through acquaintance but through how they build on the work of others (as touched on by the freshman lit 101 reference to Hemingway about all contemporary American novels tracing back to Huck Finn) over generations. But, no, all we get is you can't live in the past, literally.

I'm wondering why the current hang-up with time travel. I'm half way through 11/22/63, which has the same escapist trappings. Some reviews have expressed that this is a departure for King but he's always been a nostalgic guy, so I don't see much new here. Isn't 'you can't go back' one of the great truths? I think with Allen we have a guy that is getting older, that now needs a younger proxy (Owen Wilson) to fill in for him. And with Stephen King, we have a guy that's also getting older and still processing the fallout from his near death accident a few years ago.

[Attilla, given your involvement with theatre, I actually thought of you while reading 11/33/63 and recommend the book to you.]

As for the casting, I liked McAdams. I didn't like Bates (not harsh enough). I liked whoever played Zelda but not the guy the played F.Scott or Hemingway.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
<img class="size-full wp-image-6774 aligncenter" title="Midnight in Paris Fashion" src="http://www.thevoguevibes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MidnightInParis-Stills-002.jpg" alt="Hemingway & Belmonte" width="690" height="493" /img>


TheMutt92 said:
This is only the second Woody Allen film I've seen...

I've seen most of Woody Allen's work since discovering him with Bullets Over Broadway, but this is easily one of his most enjoyable. Post car-wreck Owen Wilson makes a good surrogate for Woody Allen's typical put upon husband role, and the locations were top notch. I wouldn't have thought of using La Musée des Arts Forains for the Fitzgerald's party! And Deyrolle is one of my favorite shops in Paris, so that was a nice touch.

Joe Brody said:
...the film has such an optimistic ending with Wilson's character ending up with a young (hot) Parisian soulmate. The present doesn't look too bad after all -- so I can't agree with you Gustav (note, Wilson's character ends up with the young one and not the older Mrs. Sarkozy).

Because Carla Bruni is horrible to look at? Yeah, I don't see a real complaint here.

Gustav said:
No it isn't a huge moral. Maybe that was just something Woody Allen felt couldn't be ignored...

Nostalgia is, of course, an emotional connection. It was commented upon repeatedly by various characters, but never directly until Adriana mentioned it when she decided to stay in La Belle Epoque. I would've have liked to see a little more of this aspect.

Overall though, a fantastic picture. I enjoyed it immensely.
 

Gustav

New member
I acknowledge the happy ending meaning "be happy with the present" but I still think that was only included because the film would have otherwise had a heavy and cynical ending and Woody Allen knew that wouldn't fly as well. Maybe I'm wrong, the only thing to do is ask him, which I will do next time I see him.

It's also generally thought that wanting to live in another time period is naive and nobody wants anybody to think they're naive, but do you honestly think that, of all the eras in human history, any of us are living in the one we are best suited for?

I admit it is a little dark because there is nothing we can do about it and it is human nature to want to be happy so we always engineer a philosophy that allows us to come to grips with our current station.

All that being said and taking all inconveniences and dangers due to absence of technologies and possible over-romanticism into consideration, I'm pretty sure I would rather have been born some time between 1900 and 1910.
 
Top